Shell’s Arctic Farce: helicopter de-icing controversy

POSTINGS ON OUR SHELL BLOG

I wonder if “Outsider” can supply his source (newspaper article / date) of the rumour about Shell flying helicopters without de-icing equipment? Of course with all this hot air about the Arctic warming up etc. maybe the temperatures at the time of the helicopters flying were above that when de-icing equipment was legally required? OR, maybe this is just another piece of rumour-mongering by an individual who has a problem with Shell? Still, “Relieved” seems to believe in the tabloid rubbish. Talking of tabloids – I see that 40% of the articles published on this site are from 7 or 8 years ago!!

Here is the relevant extract: “All too often, fog socked in the helicopters Shell used to rotate workers on and off its vessels, stranding them for extra time at sea or onshore in Barrow and Prudhoe Bay. While the choppers, operated by PHI Inc., have instrument-flying capability, they weren’t equipped with critical deicing equipment that would allow them to soar into the clouds. And whenever fog rolled in — as it does roughly half the time in the summer — it was often impossible for the helicopters to stay below the clouds while still flying sufficiently above the water. The solution next year will be to put rotor heating on the equipment, allowing Shell to keep the helicopters flying on a more predictable schedule.”

So no “rumour-mongering” but reported undisputed fact by a major title belong to Hearst Newspapers. As to the publication of archive material, it serves as an excellent reminder of Shell’s past exploits, including some that you have commented on and one occasion went as far as “welcoming“.

Re-publication of past Royal Dutch Shell corporate sins hopefully makes it less likely that they will be repeated.

Having now read that excellent article from that well known rag, the “Anchorage Daily News”, it would appear that the PHI Inc. operated choppers (NOT owned by Shell??) were working within the law. No mention is made of the legal requirement to have de-icing equipment in the area at that time of the year in those weather conditions. So I again believe that my comment about “Outsider” rumour mongering are correct.

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN:

No one said the helicopters were owned by Shell.

They were however carrying Shell employees as passengers. “Outsider” is a pilot and has the expertise and experience to comment on such matters in an authoritative manner and in fact has kindly supplied me with a 10 page document by the Joint Aviation Authorities Europe entitled: “Operation of Helicopters Certified for Flight in Limited Icing Conditions.” “Outsider” has a personal interest having been on board a Shell helicopter in the North Sea when the crew lost control due to icing. Don’t you think that Shell has a responsibility for the safety of its employees when traveling on Shell’s business as helicopter passengers? Should Shell not have ensured that the helicopters were equipped with “critical deicing equipment.” With all due respect, I think that you are trying to defend the indefensible.

(2) Shell is responsible for specifying the level of de-icing equipment installed on the helicopters provided by a subcontractor

(3) the fact that the helicopters contracted by Shell could not fly under the prevailing conditions suggests, yet again, that Shell’s planning was grossly inadequate

(4) the absence of a “known band of positive temperature” in the Beaufort Sea precludes the use in icing conditions of helicopters certified for flight in “Limited Icing Conditions”

LondonLad

Inference was made by “Outsider” – quote “Shell sent….” Would have been more honest to state that “the PHI operated choppers being used to transport Shell staff etc.” Again tabloid reporting. I am sure there is probably some 100 pages of requirements for flying in icy conditions let alone 10 pages. Point is that it would be great to have a clear statement from the authorities that PHI Inc. flew illegally – I do not think the newspaper article inferred this illegality.

JOHN DONOVAN

As I said, you are trying to defend the indefensible. You seem to have about as much regard for the safety of Shell offshore employees as Shell does. Touch F*** All.

Let other visitors be the judge.

COMMENT BY “OUTSIDER” RECEIVED VIA EMAIL

LondonLad apparently can’t read…

Nobody has said the PHI helicopters flew illegally, but the fact that they couldn’t fly because they were not equipped for the prevailing weather conditions suggests poor planning.

Apart from routine transport of crews, helicopters also have an important role to play in emergencies for both rescue and medevac. It seems that for much of the time the helicopters contracted by Shell would not have been available if an emergency situation had arisen.

Flight through icing conditions is also a risk. Ice adds weight to the aircraft and can quickly affect its controls and so conditions in which icing could be present normally have to be avoided.

Bristow employs different procedures and systems to deal with icing conditions, depending upon the severity. Bristow’s S92 fleet has a rotor icing protection system which allows it to operate in some conditions when other helicopters cannot, while its EC225 and AS332 models have limited icing clearances which allow them to fly in certain icing conditions for setperiods of time. If however serious icing conditions are expected at all flight levels, flights are often disrupted.

UNQUOTE

FURTHER POSTING BY LondonLad

Inference remains from “Outsider” – no legal action taken by the authorities, nobody killed, more up-to-date conversation on this website. Job done. Off to watch Braga then to NY for some R&R – have a quiet week. XXX

To LondonLad: FYI – I too used to fly, although my license was limited to fixed wing aircraft. The notion that Shell would not specify that it contractors have aircraft equipped to fly in the adverse conditions routinely encountered is appalling. It clearly demonstrates a lack of regard for the welfare of not only contractor personnel, but also its own employees. As I said in a previous posting, conduct of the part of Shell management is not only grossly negligent, but close to being criminally negligent.

0 Comments on “Shell’s Arctic Farce: helicopter de-icing controversy”

Leave a Comment

Meta

SHELL BLOG

Comments

singapore love: Rumor on the street is the Shell Vito project is over a year behind schedule, AND Shell plans to double down and award Whale to the same contractors in the coming weeks.
Must be some serious love going on between the Singaporeans and Shell decision makers....

Bonus Group: To uscitizen,
BRAZIL:
'PS - Shell is investing 2 billion a year into Brazil and already paying off'. Assuming $2Bn (you did not quote currency), that would just about cover Shell's share of the costs of replicants, operating expenses and of course managers' BONUSES!
$2Bn would represent approximately 10% of Shell's income in 2018.
https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2018/consolidated-financial-statements/statement-of-cash-flows.php
FPSO unit cost: our initial case ($91bn total capex) assumed a cost of $2.5 billion for each of 13 FPSO units. However, our research shows a wide range of possibilities for this cost depending on the vessel configuration; plus the fact that Brazilian shipyards should get better at building them so the cost could reduce over time. Also the project might choose to lease rather than buy the FPSOs outright, which could improve economics for the consortium depending on the lease terms.
http://openoil.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OO_br_Libra_narrative_1.0_161104.pdf

uscitizen: Bonus group, Contradict myself - lol. Poor guy - like I said do your own research - tell us what you find, you will look like the irrational uneducated poster you are. PS - Shell is investing 2 billion a year into Brazil and already paying off. Do you ever look anything up?

Bonus Group: To US Citizen. Thank you for your post of September 9th 2019 20:12. Congratulations on also being an avid reader of this blog. You are correct in my post of June 26th 2019 23:05 I did say that '..Shell had a ‘fire sale’ of a plethora of BG ‘dross’ assets in order to raise $30Bn to disguise the amount by which they had overpaid for BG Group.' More correctly, Shell had a ‘fire sale’ including a plethora of BG ‘dross’ assets in order to raise $30Bn to disguise the amount by which they had overpaid for BG Group. This does not detract from the fact that Shell did have a 'fire sale' in order to raise $30Bn. By my estimation Shell over paid for BG Group by about 30%. The Christmas boxes were very large, but the presents were very small. You contradict yourself when you say that you will not do my homework for me, but then tell me that the split of the $30Bn assets sold was 80:20 Shell:BG. Is that correct? If so, thank you that just goes to show how worthless those BG assets were, but then that is what you can expect from a Cappuccino and Belgian chocolate lifestyle company. Any comments about what the Brazil Asset are up to these days?

uscitizen: To Bonus Group - the large percentage of assets sold by Shell were non BG assets. I will not do your homework for you, but the split is 80/20. A great example of why you do not take what this sites protagonists post as good information. But go ahead, say I am wrong and also posting garbage, do your research and tell me the number of BG asset sales vs the 30 billion Shell raised thru asset sales.

John Donovan: MESSAGE FROM JOHN FOR THE ATTENTION OF BOGUS GROUP. I have received the information you kindly sent and have replied by encrypted email.

Bill Campbell Prelude Comment: I might write in more detail but I find it rather ironic that it was this website that was telling the world 6 or so years ago that this installation did not have risk levels as low as claimed and one of the principal risk drivers was the compact nature of a hazardous substances plant with not enough space to swing a cat in. Unless you are not aware I wrote to Shell Australia at the time giving them data from 8 existing or planned onshore LNG plants which varied from 80 to 100 hectares or on average 20 to 22 times the footprint of Prelude, could they tell me as a stakeholder with shares in the Company how they arrived at their ridiculously low number but can guess I assume that a reasonable explanatory reply was not forthcoming, as sure as eggs are eggs if this plant is currently having problems or if it has problems or major accident events in future it will be due to the force fitting a complex plant, with risk levels much above which they have published, on a postage stamp of a footprint.
God willing they will never live to regret their fraudulent overly optimistic claims, risk is based on reality not wishful thinking.
Bill

Thanks. Problem is that it's behind a paywall and despite it being a great publication for the oil industry, none of us retired folk wants to invest in a subscription.

FURTHER REPLY FROM JOHN

I have received the further Prelude information you have kindly provided and have replied by encripted email.

Bonus Group: Further to Bogus Group's post yesterday. I am absolutely appalled that a Senior Executive of Royal Dutch Shell plc should spout so much nonsense concerning the Prelude installation. The statement is redolent of Malcolm Brinded and his 'Touch F*ck All' policy, which led to the deaths of Keith Moncrieff and Sean McCue on Brent Bravo on 11th September 2003. What is boring is the continuous misleading spin and blather from the top of this company and their lackadaisical approach to safety. 'Chronic Unease' is a well known expression in the Oil and Gas Industry, and that state of mind is far from boring or routine. In fact nothing is either boring or routine in Oil and Gas operations. Rob Jager moved last year to the post of VP Prelude after spending thirteen years as Country Chair and VP for Shell New Zealand/Shell Taranaki, after Shell announced the sale of its New Zealand interests in March 2018. Jager clearly previously has spent too much time being 'laid back' in the fantasy land of Lord of the Rings, marvelling at New Zealand's scenery and wondering who will be entertaining him for his next luxury seafood dinner accompanied by a glass of chilled expensive New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc.

Bogus Group: PLEASE SEE REPLY FROM JOHN WHICH FOLLOWS THE COMMENT FROM BOGUS GROUP
More on Prelude article in Upstream.

I’m stunned by what can only be described as idiotic statements. Nothing like the utopia of self-aggrandisement without verification. What is Jagers’ level of technical and operational capabilities? I recall similar rhetoric from BG Group charlatans, with the “best in class” mentality and use of the most overstated expression ever to be used outside the education sector, all aimed at pleasing their taskmasters.
Ramp-up of Prelude and what Jager hopes will be decades of “uneventful” and “boring” operation.
“This will be a state where little or nothing happens. We have few if any alarms, no surprises and where things are running like clock work and we are effectively in autopilot,” he said.
“We will know when we have succeeded in this ambition because Prelude will be recognised as the most boring asset in Shell global portfolio our people will refer to it as the safest and most desirable place to work, and when the rest of the industry is knocking on our door to find out how we have achieved such a best in class outcome, especially for a facility as complex and unique as Prelude.”

REPLY FROM JOHN

Hello, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the article via [email protected] using an anonymous email address. I would pass it on to retired Shell EP experts for their assessment.

FG names Shell, Eni executives in $1bn bribery case – The Punch08 May 2019 11:43Google’Femi Asu with agency report
Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Eni SpA face additional corruption allegations over a Nigerian oil deal, after the Federal Government said in a London lawsuit that it believed a handful of executives, including Chief Executive …

FG names Shell, Eni executives in $1bn bribery case08 May 2019 08:09Punch Newspapers’Femi Asu with agency report
Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Eni SpA face additional corruption allegations over a Nigerian oil deal, after the Federal Government said in a London lawsuit that it believed a handful of executives, including Chief Executive …

John Donovan’s ebooks

EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZONEBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.